These Could Be The Most Sexist GM Ads

Sponsored Links

For the most part, General Motors and its various brands have some great commercials promoting their vehicles. Heck, here are three awesome commercials that we published in the last 30 days alone (one, two, three). But that’s not to say that The General doesn’t make a blunder or three now and again, as seen in these examples.

Women Can Only Be Passengers In A Cadillac

This 1959 Cadillac print ad beats around the bush a little bit before getting to the point. It reads:

One of the special delights which ladies find in Cadillac ownership is the pleasure of being a passenger. First of all, there is the sheer physical luxury of riding in a new Cadillac. The car is wondrously spacious and comfortable — and perfectly proportioned for complete freedom of movement. Then there is the enchanting interior beauty… the marvelous convenience of its appointments… the great smoothness of ride… and the marvelous quietness of operation. We invite you to visit your local dealer soon… with the man of the house — and spend an hour in the passenger seat of a 1959 Cadillac. We know you will agree that it is the world’s nicest place to sit.

Not only does Cadillac recommend that women bring their man to the Caddy dealer, but they’re also limited to riding in the passenger seat during the test drive. Because a man must always sign off on a car purchase… right?

The Buick Riviera Is A Car That Only A Man Can Really Understand

This 60s ad for the Buick Riviera is well-produced and has a catchy tune. The car, which Buick presents as being able to make every mile an adventure, is also nothing to sneeze at. But Buick goes one step further, and describes the Riviera as “a great and rare machine that a woman can admire and enjoy to the fullest, but only a man can really understand.”

We’re no doctors, but we’re guessing that some kind of physiological or psychological difference exists between men and women that allows the former to understand the Riviera better.

Tie-Game: Spark Ad vs. Nostalgic Poster

Our third example is actually a tie between an ad for the Chevy Spark and a captioned poster.

The Spark commercial in question has received some criticism for portraying the vehicle as being only for thin, attractive women who do nothing all day but drive around Paris and shop:

Steve Hall writes for Ad Rants: “After all, we know fashion conscious women always choose their vehicle for its color and not its performance. And they obviously don’t know how to drive right either. And all they like to do all day long is shop. And eat chocolate.”

But our take on this particular spot isn’t as sensitive: the ad obviously presents an idealized vision where people don’t work and instead drive around town in beautiful dresses visiting their favorite colorful shops, and doing choreographed power slides around roundabouts (is that even possible in a Spark?). Perhaps the ad isn’t “sexist”, but rather “imaginary” — and we see nothing wrong with that.

So since the Spark ad doesn’t seem to qualify for the “sexist” classification, this poster might:

It reads:

Remember when your cupholder sat next to you and wore a poodle skirt?

The conclusions one would draw from such a message should be obvious, even though a poster isn’t technically an ad. Having pondered the meaning behind the caption, we’ve come away assuming that GM didn’t mean anything negative in this particular instance — but boy could it have come up with something else to say.

Have you seen any specific examples of offensive ads from The General? If so, share them in the comments.

Love the ATS, it makes the 3 Series look boring. LOVE that Impala ad as well as the car. Don’t like the Monaco ad, it’s the right concept, but they don’t show product, which is a mistake when introducing a new product. They show a whopping 4 seconds of the car in a 2 minute ad. I spent the night in Monaco once, I liked the scenery a lot, but that won’t help sell an ATS. I know they probably meant that as an “image” ad, but even with that type of ad, you can still show product. Remember the Infiniti trees and rocks ads? Didn’t help the brand much, but sales of trees and rocks went way up!

These ads are only a reflection of those times. I’ll bet all the single moms out there struggling would love to return to this era when the oppressive tax structure in the USA didn’t exist so a family could make it on one income. Federal income tax was 2% in 1950, today what is your effective rate, 30%? Women didn’t have to work in those days so they were treated differently.

Grawdaddy, don’t be a dumb ass. ALL data has proven and supports the fact that the quickest way to poverty is single motherhood. In fact contrary to the B.S. politically correct Zeitgeist of the “empowered single mother” – MOST single mothers are struggling and are in fact uneducated to boot.

So women willing want to be uneducated and poor in a hetero or homo relationship just because?

Also, this isn’t about an “empowered single mother”. This is about a woman (1 woman), not a mother, and what her standing was in the 1950’s versus today.

Today, if a woman wants to get married with whomever, who says she must remain ignorant of the wold? Who says she must bear a child? Who says she must be unpaid?

The only thing I’m getting from Micheal about all this is that because the tax rate in the US is what it is, that a woman need not have to subscribe to a 1950’s American definition of what’s expected of a woman in a marriage. To Micheal, the statement:

“I’ll bet all the single moms out there struggling would love to return to this era when the oppressive tax structure in the USA didn’t exist so a family could make it on one income.”

Suggests that forgoing all the benefits of independence and of self determination that a woman can have for herself today aren’t important enough as a low tax rate and having herself attached to another man or woman for financial stability.

I wouldn’t call that PC at all. To me, making this into a ceaseless PC game would dissolve this whole post into the blurry strings of refering to woman and men as some manner of god and bacteria respectively.

This is more of what she (or anyone else for that matter) can be of themselves; the tax rate doesn’t enter into it.

Gotta respectfully disagree with you on that. My mom didn’t (have to) work; most of my friend’s moms didn’t either. The ads that portray a woman being driven around in a Cadillac, as a passenger, don’t sound a living hell to me.

Personally, I find none of these ads “sexist” especially the older ones. They are just a reflection of the culture they come from, nothing more, nothing less.

Fact: GM didn’t even start actively pursuing the female auto-buying market in force till the very late 60-early 70s. There’s a great article in Collectible Automobile where they interviewed the top GM Interior designer of the time (who is also gay – hmm that’s an interesting coincidence…) about how GM tasked him with making the Interiors of the car more appealing to females.

At the time most of GM personal Coupes and Luxury marks had a very prominent stigma of being “men’s cars”. Gm wanted to soften that image to attract the newly growing demographic of financially enabled females.

So this designer started the trend of removing the chrome and metal work trim from the interiors of the cars. He also pioneered the throw pillow options in the Oldmobiles and floral patterns on the upholstery and etc. Under his watch GM started offering fabric interior options that mimicked
expensive house furniture, as well as Vanity mirrors, and optional tissue box’s.

Needless to say GM struck a nerve. Some of the initial offerings were quite silly, but GM accomplished it’s goal of successfully “softening” the masculine image of it’s personal luxury coupes and more expensive cars.

Just a sign of the times back then & the fact then the males had & most certainly controlled the money. Nowadays males & females of all types of gender, religion, politics & differing types of budgets can have a choice in what car they drive. Thankfully GM’s cars tend to appeal to both sexies without being too feminine/masculine (yes there is odd exceptions & I’m glad there is). These days many women drive & take a interest in cars (not to the extent of enthusiasts), but they know what they want – the missis likes Corsa & Mokka ranges. GM & other big firms know how important it is to serve all the market (and not to be restricting to just half of it) hence GM offers cars to suit everybody.

Remember back then the family saloon was just that the main car, now many people have more than one car in the family (big saloon & small runaround, maybe sons or daughters have cars too). When the missis passes her test we will be a two car family.

Although sexist advertising like the ones in the article have gone, there are still ads today that can be still seen as sexist. One of them is Ford Australia’s new Ford Fiesta ad which has a girl driving around in a Fiesta talking about how awesome the high heels compartment under the passenger seat is and how she just had to buy the Fiesta because of it. The Ford Fiesta ad has been critised for implying that women only care about fashion accessories in cars, they put looking good over driving safely etc.

Not to mention how dumb the marketing strategy behind the series of ads is, no wonder Ford has only one vehicle in the Top 20 vehicle sales in April 2013 which was the Ford Ranger.

These ads are for luxury cars…so, the people who drive them are probably people who live a good life….does not make them superior or sexist…just able to afford the luxury lifestyle. Nothing wrong with having nice things

There is one now that is horrible. “The Garcia’s got a new car. HE must have gotten a raise. Lucky him. Lucky her.” Why can’t SHE have gotten a raise? Does Anyone at GM live in 2014? I get mad every time it’s on.